I searched for this user group on Facebook. It has 644 fans as of right now. The "Help Me In Removing The Page 'EVERYBODY DRAW MUHAMMAD DAY'" group has 41,092 fans. I'm curious if all of these people are Muslims or if they simply hate freedom of speech. It would be one thing if Facebook created this page for the purpose of stirring tension or making a point, but it was an individual user who started it, and the Muslims who are boycotting Facebook are really opposed to anyone having the freedom to disagree with them. I'm somewhat tempted to join the group in mere opposition to their elitist ignorance and sense of entitlement.
Obviously. However, this has no bearing at all on the statement I was taking issue with, I'm not quite sure why you think it does. How do your points address the following:
If I may, it's formulated a little bit confusingly... as you interpret it, when he says "other" it implies that this 'draw Muhammad day' event does not share the quality,
but what he actually means is that any other such event would also share that quality.
ie. "There is no other way to defy the extremists without offending the innocent."
Obviously. However, this has no bearing at all on the statement I was taking issue with
I was saying what I believe the poster meant, in different words. He could also think that, in order to effectively defy extremist, journalistic publications should not censor such images when they become news items, and perhaps even print an image of Mohammed themselves so that Muslim countries cannot attempt to economically pressure any single media group/country without attempting to censor/boycott all of them. I remember what happened to Denmark, and the cowardice of many media groups in response, and I personally agree with all of these possible meanings.
I searched for this user group on Facebook. It has 644 fans as of right now. The "Help Me In Removing The Page 'EVERYBODY DRAW MUHAMMAD DAY'" group has 41,092 fans. I'm curious if all of these people are Muslims or if they simply hate freedom of speech.
Why must it be one or the other? This is what I don't understand. I can think you have the right to say something and still think you're a childish jerk for saying it. Wrapping your statements in the blanket of "freedom of speech" doesn't magically make them noble.
Everybody have fun tonight. Everybody Wang Chung tonight.
I was asking Mystic Tater his reasoning behind asserting freedom of speech as more sacred than anything else; and I further explained why I asked the question. Fundamentalism had nothing to do with my inquiry. As far as Im concerned, fundamentalism and secularism are both byproducts of modernity that feed off each other.
Why is it more sacred? good question.
Despite your assertion that you are not fundamentalist, you are, in a small way. The most dogmatic fundamentalist Christian binds himself to scripture with utmost rigidity, while many Catholics bind themselves to scripture, but much more loosely. Ultimately, though, you found many of your basic beliefs on a text of some sort, and just like a logarithm, belief structures have a basic input that they abide by. This input negates any other input from being processed; so even a Catholic finds himself up in arms when something disrupts that input - like an insult to Christianity itself. In the same way, these Muslims find themselves in a Fundamentalist rut, but because they are much much more infatuated with a 1 dimensional kind of belief system, they are highly offended when someone violates their tenets, even in a joking manner. They take a matter that is un-serious, quite seriously.
On the other hand, I am another kind of Fundamentalist. I believe in the fundamentals of basic human rights, and one of these rights is to express ones self freely. And in the same way as the Muslims, I am quite offended when someone intrudes upon these rights, primarily because these rights can encompass all belief systems. In this way, there can be civil discourse without smothering the rights of others.
Now, you may say that this particular instance of discourse involving caricatures of Muhammad, does not adhere to any sort of civil debate, but instead mocks a set of beliefs for entertainment value, desensitization, or some other motive. But if this is the case, then why is it proper for politicians to ramrod ad hominems during every election over the net, air-waves, and television? It's not completely civil, but wherever you find opposition to any belief, you will also find mockery. It's a la carte to the civil discourse, so I think we should let it slide as it is; and not ball up in defense as if it's actually addressing a belief system in a structured way. That's just a childish misjudgment.
Why must it be one or the other? This is what I don't understand. I can think you have the right to say something and still think you're a childish jerk for saying it. Claiming "freedom of speech" when making a statement doesn't automatically make your speech noble.
In my opinion, those who join this group asking for the removal of the "Draw Muhammad Day" group are essentially saying, you don't have the right to say whatever you want if it offends me. That's what they should've named the group.
I'm not a hostile person nor do I look for opportunities to offend people. But I'm offended when somebody tells me that I don't have the freedom of speech because my beliefs aren't aligned with theirs; and that's the message that many Muslims have sent to the rest of the world through violence or other means. This Facebook group wasn't started in opposition to Muhammad or Islam; it's in response to the intolerance that religious zealots have imposed upon non-believers.